It’s definitely fixable
-
-
Replying to @rsg
What? Not with any semblance of freedom of speech it isn't. And even then, I doubt it. The scale is too large. Look at what FB had to do with WhatsApp: remove functionality until the pain was bearable. Unless you mean fixable by the products committing partial suicide...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @antoniogm @rsg
"Partial suicide" is an apt description for any reduction in engagement, which is clearly on the menu (pour one out for Trending). As for misinformation: while free speech guarantees a measure of venom there is nothing inevitable about its algorithmic amplification.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jasonkincaid @rsg
Second clause is casuistry. Either legally or in the public perception around what constitutes 'free speech', amplification is considered part of the right. Consider the right-wing conniptions around 'shadow banning'. Nobody going to accept posting with no distribution.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
please. second clause is absolutely accurate. there's no right to freedom of reach. it's not enshrined in the constitution. it wasn't even a possibility until a 10 yrs ago. conniptions are by people who don't understand how an algorithmic feed works (sometimes willfully ignorant)
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
The 'this isn't the government therefore no 1A' arguments about this are the most tiresome and pointless. That's clearly not public perception. If anything, the people who think posting with no feed distribution is speech are the ones who don't seem to get it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @antoniogm @noUpside and
Instead of me defending what's reality right now, why doesn't one of you opinionated disinformation people actually sketch out a vision of how this would work in practice. Who's doing the truth patrolling? In a world where much news is becoming op-ed, what's held to the standard?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @antoniogm @noUpside and
What's funny is even if you're right, we're still fucked. In a world of wildly divergent values, truth alone is enough to get to Civil War II levels of polarization. Nobody needed to do a viral deepfake of the Kavanaugh hearings for that to become what it did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antoniogm @noUpside and
I hate to go all Notebook, but it is conceivable that a way out of this is not in ‘the tech’ but ~within ourselves~. Were a credible authority to argue convincingly that (for eg) sharing fake news was morally wrong, then we might see some changes
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CJAMcMahon @antoniogm and
For example, I remain surprised that tech luddism hasn’t developed in a religious way yet. Like a reaction against prosperity theology. But that’s only one possibility. Lots of third ways/ outside of the box could emerge within the next decade
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Either in explicit religious form, or via secularized versions of same, we're going to have NeoLuddite movements. Right now, it's a luxury of the super-rich--the most show-offy status thing you can do with your phone is throw it away--but at some point it'll become ideological.
-
-
Replying to @antoniogm @noUpside and
Yes, the élites detoxing will probably spread, but at the same time there will be many who will simply want to embed themselves further in tech. Kinda surprised that many far left seem to be doubling down here too (eg Paul Mason and fully automated luxury communism crew)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CJAMcMahon @noUpside and
Not read him. Interesting. Sounds like a hard needle to thread. As students of McLuhan say, we craft our technology, and then our technology crafts us.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

